Excising a boy’s healthy foreskin is just as wrong as excising a girl’s healthy labia. Both are mutilation, and both should be illegal.
Boys are circumcised in the exact same barbaric conditions that girls are. EVERY culture that circumcises girls also circumcises boys, and it’s not like they give the boys special treatment for their circumcisions.
Oh, and the ladies are typically fine with it, too. Ignorance is bliss:
Unless you’ve been EDUCATED about what’s lost during circumcision, like these two ladies are:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, FGM survivor, on male and female circumcision:
Soraya Mire, FGM survivor and author of top-selling FGM memorir The Girl with Three Legs, on male and female circumcision:
Circumcised women still orgasm:
Not to minimize the human rights violation inherent in all unnecessary cutting of children’s genitals, but the type of female circumcision by far the most common in Indonesia and Malaysia (and universally condemned worldwide) removes a rice grain-sized piece of tissue from the clitoral prepuce; the type of male circumcision most common in America removes the ENTIRE penile prepuce and oftentimes the frenulum–the male G spot.
Removing the tissue in the top photo from a baby boy is perfectly legal in the Western world, including the U.S. Removing the tissue in the bottom photo from a baby girl is banned by federal law in most of the Western world, including the U.S. Equality? I think not.
Of course, there are more severe forms of genital cutting performed on both genders throughout the world. This picture is simply intended to show the gender inequality under U.S. law. One is banned from removing a small piece of the female prepuce (a common form of female circumcision), but one can remove the entire male prepuce (the most common form of male circumcision) without legal action. See the chart below for an analysis of the full spectrum of genital cutting imposed on children around the world and this article from The Atlantic for a good summary of the Western misconceptions surrounding female genital cutting. Wake up, America. Your culture desperately needs you to believe that “what they do over there” is entirely different and not comparable to “what we do over here,” but the facts state otherwise. Do you not see your blindness in opposing the cutting of children’s genitals in all its forms except for the one that happens to be commonplace in your culture? How convenient; you are no better than they.
In general, the West has collectively defined and prohibited FGM as the excision of tissue–no matter how small–from the female genitals apart from true medical need and apart from the individual’s consent, even if that individual is an infant or child whose parents retain general decision-making power over her. Why, then, in this age when gender equality is so passionately pursued in every sphere, has MGM not likewise been defined and prohibited as the excision of tissue–no matter how small–from the male genitals apart from true medical need and apart from the individual’s consent, even if that individual is an infant or child whose parents retain general decision-making power over him? You can’t argue health: the vulva is, statistically-speaking, more of an infection risk than a foreskin, and we banned FGM without any inquiry into the potential health benefits of its lesser forms. And you can’t argue aesthetics since that’s entirely subjective. Likewise, it is entirely arbitrary to argue that religious and cultural support is reason enough to support male cutting but not female cutting. One could just as well argue, equally arbitrarily, that religious and cultural support is reason enough to support female cutting but not male cutting. Isn’t a basic premise of U.S. law EQUAL protection and not ARBITRARY protection?
On that note, why even genderize it into “female” or “male” at all? Genital mutilation: excising tissue from the genitals apart from true medical need and apart from the individual’s consent, even if that individual is an infant or child whose parents retain general decision-making power over them. There.
So all in all, you’re left with two options: either admit that if we’ve banned all forms of FGM, we should ban MGM as well. Or admit you’re a raving, irrational sexist.
And as a man, I am especially offended by women who believe that parents should have the right to cut off a part of their male children’s genitals but not their female children’s for some bullshit reason like “culture” or “health benefits.” To them I say:
Stop. Just stop. My parents shouldn’t have had a right to cut off any part of my genitals any more than your parents had a right to cut off a part of yours. You have no more prerogative to all of your genitals than I do to mine.
It’s funny how you’re sitting there, having not been subjected to ANY form of genital cutting, telling me that it should have been perfectly OK for my penis to have been subjected to genital cutting when I was a baby. How dare you say that parents should have the right to cut off erogenous tissue from their child’s genitals when you happily enjoy all of yours? Privileged much?
If that argument based on equality doesn’t compute in your brain, let me elaborate for you. You do not believe that your parents should have had the right to cut off any part of YOUR genitals, yet you contend that my parents should have had the right to cut off a part of MY genitals–a part that I enjoy VERY much and brings me MUCH pleasure–in order to meet some cultural standard, which is bullshit since we don’t let parents cut off any other part of their child’s body for cultural reasons (nor should we), or in order to supposedly prevent MY genitals from contracting infections to which YOUR genitals, interestingly enough, are statistically more prone. And this is all simply because I am a male and you are a female.
Well, then, if baseless, irrational, self-serving sexism is the order of the day, then I contend that you are Specimen A for the case that the female brain is vastly inferior to the male brain in the domains of logical reasoning and critical thinking. Bravo!